the only quibble I have is that, at least w/r/t/ Iraq, I don't think Webb is very hawkish, let alone "ostentatiously" so.

If BO picks Webb he will lose a lot of women - Webb has a record of being a tad, oh shall we say, misogynistic.

Why does Obama need to "shore" up his military cred at all? Why did the last pres and vp have so much cred even though both of them had avoided serving in the military? When are we going to stop mistaking a desire to use military force in each and every situation for wisdom?

My biggest issue with Webb is that I think he'd be too obvious a choice: the press corps would (probably correctly) immediately interpret it as a sign that Obama was picking Webb to shore up his military cred, and this would be a tacit admission that he agrees with McCain's fundamental criticism that he doesn't have CinC credentials.

This is so incredibly stupid and annoying. Taken to its logical end, apparently Obama should pick someone with no foreign policy experience, because otherwise he's "validating criticism" that he's weak on it. This is so stupid. When George W. Bush picked Cheney, did that "validate criticism" that Bush was inexperienced and needed an experienced guiding hand? Maybe it did, but that didn't prevent Bush from being elected - and of course Cheney's presence on the ticket did reassure a lot of people that Bush, however unprepared he might be, would be in competent hands. (Obviously, this all proved grotesquely wrong, but that's how it seemed in 2000).

When Ronald Reagan picked George H. W. Bush, his main opponent and the great champion, at that point, of establishment Nixon/Ford Republicans, did that validate the criticism that Reagan was too extreme, and thus needed someone more moderate to balance out the ticket? Maybe it did - but, again, it worked - Bush's mainstream cred did help bring more moderate Republicans back into the fold, and thus helped allow Reagan's massive victory over Carter.

I could go on like this, but this whole thing is ridiculous. The media will construct whatever ridiculous narratives they like. Obama should choose the person who will be optimal for both the campaign and for governance, and shouldn't worry about this silliness.

This is not to say that he has to pick someone with foreign policy/military experience. That's just as stupid. But the idea that he can't pick someone with more experience than him because this would somehow validate criticisms is ridiculus.

Don't you think that if Obama picks, say, Ted Strickland or Brian Schweitzer, or someone else without significant foreign policy experience, that people will say that he picked them partly because he didn't want someone who would seem more credible to him on foreign policy, because he was afraid that such a pick would highlight his own poor credentials in that department - a tacit admission, if you will, of McCain's fundamental criticism that he doesn't have CinC credentials?

Once you're making your VP on meta grounds, it's lose-lose - no matter who he picks becomes a symbol of everything that's wrong with Obama's candidacy.

After the horrible bankruptcy bill, Joe Biden is basically dead to me. I think I would actually prefer Hillary, and that is not something I would say lightly.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: the perfect checklist veep:

Woman.
Young.
Jewish.
Red State (FL). But very blue constituency.
Hillary partisan.
Rapid advancement in House leadership.
Demonstrably heterosexual. With young children.

What's not to like?

Kevin,

In case you missed it during your vacation, there was an excellent post on 538 about Schweitzer for Veep:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/on-brian-schweitzer-as-vp.html

I think one of his top 3 picks should Be Janet Napolitano.

Hugely popular governor from a Red state, woman, lawyer, more centrist, lots of experience. She's my governor, so I'm biased, but I think she's been doing a fantastic job. No major scandals I can think of, but she does pack a box lunch. Not that it's a big deal, but it could be a dealbreaker.

"Demonstrably heterosexual. With young children.

What's not to like?"

Well, as a gay woman, I'd say I don't much care for the concept that being straight is an appropriate criteria for being VP.

The purpose of picking an ostentatiously militaristic VP candidate would be to reassure the military-industrial-petroleum complex that Obama intends to keep that half-trillion dollars of taxpayers' money flowing into their overflowing coffers every year.

Obama cannot allow those folks to think that he might take some part of that money and use it for something that would actually benefit the country -- or just leave it in the taxpayers' pockets for that matter -- or he won't be allowed to get anywhere near the presidency.

I actually think Webb is the least sound choice of the three attractive Virginia possibilities.

Kaine offers good personality match with Obama and was one of his earliest non-VA supporters.

And Mark Warner would likely deliver the Commonwealth and is enormously able (though it would be too bad to sacrifice a near certain Senate pick-up).

I think the latter two are among the most likely picks, as well.

oops I meant "earliest non-IL supporters."

Two words: Sam Nunn.

He's older, he's white, he's a Southerner, he's got got foreign policy chops. Its the political equivalent of batting for the cycle.

Webb has the foreign policy/military part, but he can't be controlled. And let's not forget that he is a former Republican.

And, despite the bluing of Virginia generally, a big part of his win was Macaca.

I could have sworn I just read somewhere that McCain will paint Obama as "(a) naive about foreign policy, (b) unqualified to command the military, and (c) ready to surrender to al-Qaeda and squander the sacrifices of thousands of brave American soldiers. His supporters will help out with plenty of talk about terrorist fist jabs and "slips of the tongue" in which they call him Osama on national TV."

Surely such an approach would never succeed with the American public, so the idea that Obama could benefit from having a VP with extensive military and foreign policy credentials is irrelevant.

Pardon me, but to judge Webb on the basis of what you think the reaction of the press will be is to make a judgment on the basis of too many probabilistically dependent events whose probabilities can only be estimated by taking numbers out of your ass.

In any case, no matter who is chosen by Obama, there will always be plenty of analyses by the pundits that would point to the weakness of Obama that the choice would address. So if you go by such criteria, Obama should not pick a VP at all and do it all by himself.

I think this is the only ridiculous post that I have ever read on this blog. Perhaps you need some time to recuperate from the German/British/European alcohol.

Not that he is tops on my list, but the douchebag Jay Rockefeller. To isolate him into a position where he can do no real harm (assuming Obama would in fact supervise OVP). And open a seat in the Senate for (hopefully) a slightly more progressive Dem to help with the real work that needs to be done over the next 4-8 years. He brings alleged foreign policy/intelligence experience, strictly for purposes of the general election. Would make it look like Obama is open to those who do not necessarily agree with him. And maybe he can swing some of the Appalachian vote.

weenie,

I admit to being unaware of Webb's misogyny. Do you mean the weird shit that I've heard shows up in his writing (I tried to read one of his novels once, and found it unreadable) or does he have a bad policy record, as well?

The VP choice (male or female) - should have the presence to counter the effeminizing portrait that the GOP will overlay on the Democratic ticket. That's what Webb really brings - more than just military hawkishness.

Note the way that Edwards was portrayed with his "$400 haircut" and Coulter's smear of him being a "fag" ... Or how they painted John Kerry using the same palate.

This has nothing to do with male vs. female ... Hillary Clinton would have a stronger presence than Edwards per se. In fact, her smears of Obama as elitist - had the same GOP tinge.

Obama resists the portrait by being calm, forceful, and reasoned - not by downing shots or chest bumping.

I really would like to see Chuck Hagel as the VP choice. A commenter made the fine point that his pro-life stance would infuriate Clinton supporters.

I feel that adding Hagel to the ticket, while making Obama's pro-choice stance explicit, would change the dynamics of the election - neutralizing the abortion wedge issue. And would demonstrate that this election is more important than a single wedge issue, highlighting that reasonable people can disagree- and that the Democratic party has pro-lifers among its leadership. (Harry Reid).

The value of Sebelius would be what now?

If the idea is that putting any old female on the ticket will help woo alienated female Hillary supporters to Obama, you're sadly mistaken. I can't think of anything more guaranteed to keep them alienated than acting as if women politicians are interchangeable commodities. Bleacch.

The vast, vast majority of female Hillary supporters voted for her for the same reasons her male voters did, because they thought she was a better candidate (and still think so). The fact that she's a female adds some emotion, but it's nowhere near even one of the main reasons women voted for her and continue to support her.

A lot of Hillary voters became Hillary voters after they took a good hard look at Obama and rejected him on his own merits, such as they are. Most of the Hillary vote was as much of an anti-Obama vote as it was a pro-Hillary vote.

Obama so far has shown no more sign of understanding this than most Obama bloggers do. He has time, though, and if he figures it out and acts accordingly, he at least has a chance to get many of those voters for the general. Picking Sebelius or Napolitano would be a very loud signal that he doesn't get it.

For my money Nunn is too far right, without the symbolic benefit of being or having been a Republican; plus he is, and looks old, and I can't think of a choice that says more loudly that Obama thinks the public thinks he doesn't know from national security and is too exotic for parts of the country.

I think Obama will consistently kick McCain's butt on the merits of foreign policy/security debates, which will partially offset the stupid perception that McCain is some sort of sage in these areas. Obama's comfortable talking diplomacy and security strategy.

If you want a Southerner with both NASCAR and suburban New South appeal, Warner's the guy. Plus he shares youthful appearance like Obama and has big private sector experience, which would make him a good counterpoint to McCain.

Byron Sweitzer, Governor of Montana or Jake Reed, Senator of Rhode Island should be among his top considerations. They shore up his foreign policy and experience issues and can attack John Mccain while appealing to the white working class voters he is having trouble with right now. Plus they're vets. Well, Reed is, I don't know about Sweitzer.

Plus, they were both anti-war and are reformers.

I think they have interesting stories to roll out that are not well known and they would fit aesthetically with Obama. I think he is also considering several women: he has the delegations in Washington and California to look to see some good picks there I think.

But overall: I hope he doesn't pick the top ten mentioned constantly and goes with someone new and out of the public eye so he can roll out someone with a great story to introduce at the convention that reinforces his own narrative. Both of these men uniquely do that I think.

I hear Schweitzer also speaks Arabic and spent years in the middle east. If that is true, that would be a huge plus in a running mate.

I'd be happy with Schweitzer, Warner (although I think I would prefer him in the Senate), Wes Clark, Reed, Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, and a few other Democrats.

Surprised I don't hear Wesley Clark mentioned in the veepstakes at all. Has ties to the Clintons, has a strong military background, has some name recognition due to the failed 2004 run. Would seem to be a decent choice.

Thersites,
Tailhook ring any bells for you?

My biggest issue with Webb is that ... this would be a tacit admission that he agrees with McCain's fundamental criticism that he doesn't have CinC credentials.

—Kevin Drum

Earth to Drum: Obama DOESN'T have CinC credentials. So how does adding someone with no CinC credentials to the ticket weaken McCain's argument that Obama doesn't have CinC credentials?

WTF?

And, continuing to state that you're not sure that Hillary wants to be V.P. may please some of your blogging buddies, but it makes you look stupid to everyone who knows differently.

Webb is Lieberman v 2.0

That is to say he's an idiot. And so long as he remains a *useful* idiot he's worth having around, even in the senate. But he's a bad choice to put anywhere near the executive. I strongly suspect that if the GOP rights itself he'll leave the dems in a heartbeat.

Yeah, Tailhook would be hard to explain away.
I stand (or sit, actually) corrected.

College educated professionals want Obama to choose Webb so that less than college educated laborers will support Obama, but those laborers are not persuaded to vote for Webb despite his Reaganite bona fides and Scots-Irish ethnicity. That is funny, but what is sad is the misunderestimation of the people the educated professionals think Webb appeals to.

Wallace/Reagan Democrats respond to looking them in the eye and self-confidently telling them what the candidate stands for. Most of them do not respond to empty symbolic displays meant to appeal to their prejudices and platitudes.

Obama displays the kind of self-confidence that appeals to can-do Americans. He does not resort to the brash and rash behaviors that McCain and Webb perform.

I'm a big fan of Schweitzer myself, although I have a hard time picturing him being happy in the VP position unless he's tasked with some pretty policy-specific stuff. If nothing else, he would be an incredibly fresh breath of air in comparison with all the stuffed shirt pols who've spent their lives in Washington. I don't think he served in the military, but he had a number of years of experience working on irrigation projects in the Middle East. Of course, that means that Fox and Rush would paint him as a terrorist sympathizer; why else would someone want to provide fresh water to people over there?

The fact that he's a rancher and is resolutely pro-gun rights means that the NRA and their mouth-breathing ilk would have less to fulminate about, too.

Biden is a nightmare. I can see it now ... a reporter asks Biden a question and he takes 3 hours to answer and commits 10-30 gaffes per hour. I think the first thing a VP needs to do is: "do no harm" and I just don't see Biden not doing any harm.

Sebilius was like a moist towelette at the State of the Union. I would rather Obama choose wet paint, slowly drying.

I am still big on Webb, but it is definitely an eye-opener that he pulled the same basic people to his side as most Democrats do.

For all those who think of Webb as some sort of hair-trigger crazy man just itchin' to get into a bar brawl at the slightest chance, there's an interesting profile of him at TNR online right now that provides a distinctly different view.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's the best choice for Obama, but I think the image some have of Webb isn't accurate.

D'oh!... I should have realized the TNR link to the Webb article was already there.

I keep thinking of Clark as a suitable alternative to Webb without some of his baggage (women in the military/Tailhook especially), but I don't know if he brings any particular moxie to the campaign trail.

The new President will inherit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, he will have little time remaining to make a decision on Iran, where all choices are unpalatable. Attacking Iran could lead to disaster. Allowing Iran to develop nukes could also lead to disaster. Negotiation might allow Iran time to create a nuclear arsenal.

Like it or not, an Obama Presidency will be involved with urgent military decisions from day 1. Getting a military expert on the ticket is good for America and good for Obama's candidacy.

Why Sibelius? I'm really curious -- all I know about her is that she gave a tepid SOTU response.

And for God's sakes, why Biden? To put Florida in play? Other than that, he's just a gasbag in MBNA's pocket.

Wouldn't the choice of Biden send the same message and attract the same voters: that Obama needs some help being president? I like Sebelius, though. A lot. A direct Kansas connection and an indirect Ohio one.

Wouldn't the choice of Biden send the same message and attract the same voters: that Obama needs some help being president? I like Sebelius, though. A lot. A direct Kansas connection and an indirect Ohio one.

The value of Sebelius would be what now? If the idea is that putting any old female on the ticket will help woo alienated female Hillary supporters to Obama, you're sadly mistaken. I can't think of anything more guaranteed to keep them alienated than acting as if women politicians are interchangeable commodities. Bleacch.

Thank you. My feelings in a nutshell.

And what's the fascination with Sam Nunn? Yeah, I'm old enough to remember who he is, but I bet most voters don't. He hasn't held elective office for over 12 years, and he's in his seventies. What's the appeal? He seems to be the beloved of all the ancient white male pundits, and I'm sure everyone under forty-five is going 'WTF?'

I have said this before, and I know from many Clinton supporters that it is their view: if Clinton does not publicly bless Sebelius as VP Obama loses the election by losing Clinton voters. Pure and simple. Too much of a perceived insult. Sorry, but reality is reality.

We should avoid falling into GOP frame traps. American population has already seen that being hawkish and paying lip service to the military, the way Bush and Cheney did, is not the same as being a wise CinC. Democrats should do the hard work of busting this myth and the time is ripe to do so.

Voters elected Bush/Cheney despite clear proof that they went AWOL/draft dodging when their nation called upon them to serve. It is time to take this frame and tear it into pieces.

If Kerry, being the genuine military hero he was, couldn't convince the idiots who wavered on his qualifications as a CinC, there is no chance Obama can do that. The way to do it is to avoid falling into that frame trap.

Wes Clark #1--John Edwards #2
Joe Biden # 3 Chuck Hagel #4

I'd go for Wes Clark or Hagel. Out of those named so far.

If BO picks Webb he will lose a lot of women - Webb has a record of being a tad, oh shall we say, misogynistic.

Yup. And Obama's already got a hard row to hoe picking up Hillary's female supporters. Putting Webb on the tickets would basically be perceived as a slap in their faces.

Sort of disappointed Kevin didn't acknowledge this in his post.

Obama is not having a hard time picking up shillary's supporters - and those that think that rush limbaugh and kkkarl rove (2 of her biggest advocates) are somehow qualified to anoint democratic candidates were never actually democrats anyhow.

I think BO should pick a VP that proclaimed she was in the race cuz of the possibility of assassination.

Hey, look what it did for LBJ?

There are no wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are occupations. They are unpopular to their respective citizens, and no amount of military force will make these occupations popular. There is no need for Obama to choose a VP who symbolizes military solutions if he is going to resolve the catastrophes of the W. Bush regime.

Obama needs to choose a VP who represents a can-do-it-without-military-force solution to our problems. There may not be such an American politician, but I hope he finds one.

rational: mostly agreed.

The GOP frame is precisely what to avoid ...

however, this doesn't wash:
If Kerry, being the genuine military hero he was, couldn't convince the idiots who wavered on his qualifications as a CinC, there is no chance Obama can do that.

Kerry was an extraordinarily poor candidate. Because he couldn't communicate well - doesn't imply that some one else couldn't.

People respond to non-verbal cues as well... and Obama's exude calm strength ... whereas Kerry's exuded uncomfortable dorkiness despite his genuine war-hero background.

BUT - I agree with your remedy. Indeed.

I disagree with the selection of Wes Clark. He has never held elective office... Ike's position was rare, and Clark doesn't have his broad appeal.

Maybe all of shillary's supporters would like to hear who RUSH LIMBAUGH and KKKARL ROVE think should be the VP.

After all, these morons thought that they should anoint the head of the ticket too.

Mccain has the stoooooooopid vote cornered, don't know why Obama should even vie for them.

It is fascinating that neither Kevin nor anyone on this thread raises the issue of selecting the person best qualified, or at least well qualified, to become president. Is that not important to anyone?

As to the politics of the pick, absent him getting Colin Powell to run with him, I can't think of anyone who would add anything to Obama's general election prospects other than someone who helps win a toss up state. Nunn, Webb or Clark would probably hurt by emphasizing a weakness in Obama. Biden, Sebilius and the others mentioned probably would have no effect on the general election, I think the best pick for Obama would be either (1) someone who helps win a battleground state (e.g., Strickland, Rendell, Warner); or (2) someone who is like Bush picking Cheney, a well respected and experienced person whom one could easily see adding depth to the government of the country and becoming president if necessary - the Cheney selection was effective without diminishing Bush or highlighting a Bush weakness, while it is hard to think of a democrat who could accomplish the same - Nunn arguably, but his age hurts and experience probably hurt Obama by emphasizing Obama's youth and lack of experience.

ps -- I think it is largely unrecognized that Bush's selection of Cheney probably won the 2000 election. It was very well received at the time and almost certainly added enough Florida votes to make the difference, perhaps New Hampshire votes as well (I don't think Bush won any other close states in 2000, did he?).

God I hate Joe Biden.

I feel that adding Hagel to the ticket, while making Obama's pro-choice stance explicit, would change the dynamics of the election - neutralizing the abortion wedge issue. And would demonstrate that this election is more important than a single wedge issue, highlighting that reasonable people can disagree- and that the Democratic party has pro-lifers among its leadership. (Harry Reid).

Terrible idea. First, after 23 -- err -- 8 years in the wilderness, you've just put a Republican a heartbeat from the presidency.

Second, pro-lifers won't give two shits about a vice presidential nominee who has no say over Supreme Court appointments, while pro-choicers would be up in arms about the fact that a pro-lifer could inherit the office and nominate justices who'd overturn Roe vs. Wade. (And I'd be in the front lines of those storming the Bastille.)

A stupid decision like that would get me to join the Clinton write-in nutjobs.

Colin Powell?!?!?!?

You must be insane - are you one of the shillary voters that believes rush limbaugh and kkkarl rove are the future of the democratic party?

Besides, not only did he blow any political capital he had when he became the leading liar that lead this nation into Iraq, but didn't he give up politics to promote a chain of fried chicken restaurants:

http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aaundercoverreview.htm

I'm generally for not reflexively picking a military type, and agree that voters simply want out of Iraq. I would be surprised however, if there weren't some concocted crisis, probably in the middle east, around about September or October to put these issue of the media maelstrom.

But despite that risk, I still go with Mark Warner.o Big help in VA -- perhaps decisive -- probably a help in some other states where Barack has a shot (NC, for example). Plus, no drama; left the VA gov mansion with 70+ approval, and has executive experience public and private. Plus fills out youthful energy theme -- as Gore did for Clinton.

ROTFLMAO that thersite proclaims it "embarrassing" to point out the FACT that America was founded to be a monarchy of bush-clinton-bush-clinton.

Yet she seems to respect faux democrats that march on RUSH LIMBAUGH and KKKARL ROVE's marching orders.

What a nutjob...

Junebug,
I will join you if we have to storm the Bastille and I will bring an extra pitch fork for you.

A stupid decision like that would get me to join the Clinton write-in nutjobs.

Let's not get carried away now.

I am bewildered, though, by the suggestions of Nunn, Biden and Hagel. Before Dick "Fourth Branch" Cheney's very special vice presidency, we picked VPs with the idea that that person should be a viable and desirable candidate for president in eight years. Are we looking to run an 80-year-old, a 74-year-old or a Republican in 2016?

Tom Daschle or Gary Hart. It won't be Gary Hart, although he would be well qualified. I think there is a good chance it will be Daschle. Obama and Daschle like each other. And he passes the test that you don't want a veep that your opponents would rather have as president, because then they will consider assassinating you.

weenie,
He's in the other thread, too. He's only arguing with himself. And losing.

I like the observation that Obama should think like Clinton did in 92 and pick someone that complements and accentuates his strengths, rather than one meant to supposedly plug holes in his resume or appeal to a particular constituency or state. For Obama, that means someone (relatively) young, say under 60, with a reputation for independence and an appreciation for the key issues that make the Obama candidacy compelling. Warner would be one. Russ Feingold's another.

Charlie don't post no posted by name.

If Biden is disliked for being the MBNA candidate, Webb, Nunn and Hagel ought to be disliked for being the Lockheed, Raytheon and General Dynamics candidates.

Daschle couldn't hold his own Senate seat in '04. Obama needs to project forward movement, not a return to the 1990s.

With Clarke he at least gets some of Clinton centrists and the guy has learned a lot about campaigning since 2000. And, from what I hear, Webb is a nutcase on Vietnam history. There's already one of these running for prez.

I'm not completely averse to the idea of a Clinton on the ticket. You just have to pick the right one.

Junebug -

You are right that Hagel's a Republican. But please note, that he was vociferous in his criticisms of Bush/Cheney. Far more vociferous than many Democrats.

I don't see Bush's transgressions in merely partisan terms ... the admin has been criminal. That's not a partisan thing to say. And that's why I think having a Republican on the ticket - who has mentioned impeaching Bush - would bring a big center repudiation of Bush politics.

Your point is well taken though. Thanks for the input.

If the idea is that putting any old female on the ticket will help woo alienated female Hillary supporters to Obama, you're sadly mistaken. I can't think of anything more guaranteed to keep them alienated than acting as if women politicians are interchangeable commodities. Bleacch.

What in the world is up with the idea that Obama picking Sebelius would send a message that women politicians are interchangable?

She wouldn't be picked as some sort of stand-in for Hillary Clinton. She's a highly successful two-term governor of a red state (and a former national DGA chairwoman) that has promoted the same sort of "post-partisan" message that Obama has in convincing Republicans to join with Democrats (both of her Lt. Governors were former Republicans) while still engaging in a solidly progressive agenda. She aggressively took on the Bush administration over the use of her state's National Guard. She's also someone that reportedly gets along very well with Obama, which is important as a VP consideration. How is she in any way NOT a qualified pick for the VP nod?

You say it's offensive for any woman but Clinton to be picked; I think the idea that the only woman acceptable to be on a ticket is Clinton is much more offensive. Sebelius has clearly earned a shot at being considered by way of her resume, but you're saying it's alienating if any woman other than Clinton ascend to higher office. I'm pretty sure that's not what Clinton stood for or what her "the glass ceiling is cracking" remark was about.

me at 7:29 -- "he" referred to the moron attacking junebug, not junebug him-or-her self.

Webb has the intelligence and character to attract votes beyond he usual "did you pander to me" demographics. We need something above Beltway-as- usual corruption.

And for what it's worth, Kathleen Sebelius was Wesley Clark's top pick.

Webb has the intelligence and character to attract votes beyond he usual "did you pander to me" demographics. We need something above Beltway-as- usual corruption.

That's right on...
I don't know if Webb is the one - but I really like that perspective. Offering a vision - rather than reacting to a bunch of groups.

I second that Rendell is worth a hard look.

I'm sure Kevin has read thru the comment threads of the last weeks, but let me add my VP thoughts one more time, then I'll leave the subject alone. No one in public life is more temprementally unsuited to the VP position than Webb - read James Fallows' blog if you need elaboration. This is not meant to be pejorative, just a rational analysis of the man's strengths. OTOH, several commenters above have pointed out how Mark Warner would be ideal in all the area's that Webb would be a disaster -- an accomplished boardroom operator, executive, fundraiser, soothing establishment figure, etc. If Kaine would promise to appoint Doug Wilder to hold the Senate seat for two years, should the need arise, Warner could run for the Senate and VP on the same ballot. What's not to like?

No matter what anyone thinks of Webb's political skills and smarts, I'm uncomfortable with him for this reason: Webb's personality and demeanor remind me of Cheney. He's got an f***-you attitude and a scowl that turns me off immediately.

Who I really want to be VP is one thing, but my gut tells me Obama will pick Sebelius. They're temperamentally and philosophically very similar to each other, and she has zero baggage. And she would probably make an excellent president, if the need arose.

HRC supporters will complain that there is only ONE WOMAN and HILLARY is her name.

They will just have to grow up.

I posted these results over at Ezra's place, regarding Webb's performance in Virginia. These results come from the Virginia Board of Elections.

8th CD (D.C. suburbs)

2004 President: Kerry (64%-35%)
2005 Governor: Kaine (70%-28%)
2006 Senate primary: Webb (64%-36%)
2006 Senate: Webb (69%-30%)
2006 Prohibit Gay Marriage: No (67%-33%)

9th CD (SW; Appalachia)

2004 President: Bush (60%-39%)
2005 Governor: Kilgore (55%-43%)
2006 Senate primary: Webb (56%-44%)
2006 Senate: Allen (55%-44%)
2006 Prohibit Gay Marriage: Yes (75%-25%)

me at 7:29 -- "he" referred to the moron attacking junebug, not junebug him-or-her self.

I understood your comment, grammatically speaking, but I must've slept through that argument. Was I on tastes-great or less-filling side?

No to Webb, Kaine or Warner. They're all from Virginia, my state, and we desperately need them here. Warner will win the Senate spot if allowed to go through the election process. The Senate is the perfect spot for Webb. If Obama selects Kaine, our Republican lt. gov. will take the governorship for the next year, because regular Virginia gubernatorial elections will take place in Nov. 2009. Dems have a tight majority in the state senate and are outnumbered with a sizeable margin in the House of Delegates. We need a Democratic governor to keep the General Assembly from running amouk. Virginia is trying to turn blue. Please allow it to do so.

I'm with Tilli, Biden sucks...

If Kaine would promise to appoint Doug Wilder to hold the Senate seat for two years, should the need arise, Warner could run for the Senate and VP on the same ballot. What's not to like?

What's not to like is that Mark Warner's senate election is this fall -- November 2008.

I repeat -- we need Mark Warner in the Senate.

Guess that last comment didn't make sense.

Still -- can Warner legally run for Senate and VP at the same time? I know Lieberman did that but I'm not sure Virginia Republicans would stand for that.

itsmekaren:
What if Webb turned that attitude on Lieberman? ;-)

A great choice no one seems to be bringing up much:

Bill Bradley.

Aligned with Obama on almost all issues, and an early endorser of his candidacy. Experienced without being part of the problem. Against the Iraq War from the beginning. A deficit hawk who was great on the economy during his two decades in the Senate, and who actually helped "closed tax loopholes" in a way most politicians only talk about. Also, a campaign finance reformer well before McCain-Feingold.

If you want a "reinforcing" pick to emphasize Obama's strengths and not a "compensatory" pick that highlights his deficiencies, then Bradley is a terrific choice.

If anyone has any doubts that Jim Webb would make an excellent VP choice for Obama, read his resume, read his books, listen to his speeches, particularly his rebuttal to Bush's '07 State of the Union speech. He's the real deal - a genuine, TOUGH liberal. If ever a Democratic ticket needed an old fashioned, tough liberal, it's this one. When, as Secretary of the Navy, he was told to implement a policy he thought was wrong for America, he resigned. Men (or women) of true principal are rare in Washington DC. He's the warrior-hero McCaine pretends to be, but unlike McCaine, he's not a NEO-CON, or a war lover.

No VP choice will be perfect. Webb has admitted being wrong, in the '80's, opposing women in the military. Few others in DC ever admit they're wrong. Jim Webb is an excellent choice for VP if you actually dig into the broad record of his life, writings and service.

Obama's theme of change requires that his VP choice not be a professional politician with long, troublesome DC entanglements. Give Webb a careful look.

Based on a fairly low information "blink" kind of test, I guess my top picks right now are Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius. But I could be pretty easily converted to half a dozen other candidates too.

Wow. Tin Ear Kevin. Tin Ear Kevin from behind the Orange Curtain. Wow.

What if Webb turned that attitude on Lieberman?

What is he waiting for?

emphasize Obama's strengths

Good point. Complementary not compensatory ought to guide Obama's choice for VP.

HRC supporters will complain that there is only ONE WOMAN and HILLARY is her name.

Stop generalizing. We don't all shout with shrill voices.

And take out the garbage.

With gasoline over $4 per gallon, 'everything you know is wrong'.
Linda Milazzo is thinking outside the box and maybe you need to look out there too, at Caroline Kennedy.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15071

FWIW, I'd like to see John Edwards, but I think the press will do everything possible to keep portraying Edwards as a 'girly-man'. They purely do have contempt for him.

It's a shame because Edwards record on populism and as a trial lawyer fighting for ordinary people should place him as a strong champion of the people who are getting screwed by the economic crash and burn we're entering. After the stunts the bankers and money boys have pulled, after the ripping off by the oil companies, someone like Edwards might just appeal to a lot of people who aren't sure what Obama is going to do for them.

Further, Edwards policy proposals pushed both Obama and Clinton farther than they would have gone on their own; the change he pushes would complement what Obama is trying to do.

Not to mention Edwards other strengths: he's already been through one national campaign on the VP slot, is not currently a Washington insider, and actually seems to have learned from his experiences.

And, Edwards still has a solid core of supporters to bring to the table, along with national name recognition.

cut and pasted from my comment to the Obama-Edwards VP discussion...since it is perhaps more relevant to this discussion ....

I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter who will be voting for Barack Obama in the fall. I don't particularly want her to be chosen as VP, because the strength she might bring to the ticket (see Mark Schmitt's recent article "Did Hillary break the working-class code" in TAP online) will be compromised by unending criticism from the pundits. The choice of any other woman for VP would be an insult, since not one (Democratic) woman currently active in national or state politics has anywhere near Mrs. Clinton's experience, knowledge of domestic and international issues, ability to think on her feet, commitment to progressive ideas, etc.
I hope Jim Webb is chosen. His sharp edges would be an interesting contrast to Obama's calm temperament in the campaign, and his areas of expertise, and the voting groups he might appeal to, would complement Obama's as well. (He is also married to a Vietnamese-American, which would contribute to the historic diversity of the ticket.)
(I see that Eve Fairbanks and I agree about the yin-yang appeal of this matchup.)

Kevin, how easy it is to snipe at other's choices and make none yourself. That way you never have to admit you were wrong. You exhibit the worst tendencies of modern Democrats, most notably the utter lack of a spine. For Gods sake, man, take a stand for something - anything!

I've felt that Obama would pick someone that is well-known and established--a "safe" politician. Sebelius may be great, but most of America doesn't know her. I've suspected Biden or Daschle would be the pick. I'll admit my heart skipped a beat when Maxwell mentioned Bill Bradley. He's known as a thoughtful, principled progressive. Bradley would be the ultimate reinforcer. (Daschle would be the trusted advisor that can advocate in Congress; Biden would be the ultimate attack dog veep and could help him demographically/geographically). Middle America needs a little reassurance. To non-political animals, Obama is still pretty unknown and selecting someone that is known will comfort skeptics. Obama/Bradley 08.

How about having Obama first decide what his job description for VP is, then decide who can work that job the way Barak Obama wants it worked. I think Obama is the draw here and the running mate is less important. So the Sen. from Ill. should swing for the fences and forget all the other formulations.

Just pick who is best for the job that Obama wants to be done.

What a concept.

How has Richardson's name not come up yet? Strong foreign policy credentials, without being hawkish/military. Talks with dictators on a regular basis. Flips New Mexico (and probably Nevada & Colorado) and draws in a huge new constituency to the Democratic Party with Hispanics.

He'd be a great choice.

As much as I like, even love, some of the following, I would rule all of them out of consideration for VP:

Edwards
Gore
Bradley
Richardson
Biden
Dodd
Clinton
Hart
Daschle

What do they all have in common? They're 'losers' - that is, their last appearance on the national stage was as the loser in either a general or a primary election.

And there's a reason for that: they're all missing that extra bit of charisma and wisdom that separates defeat from success.

The Democratic Party has had enough 'losers'. Here are some 'winners':

Sebelius
Webb
Schweitzer
Kaine

The next VP of the US is on this list, I'm willing to bet.

junebug,

You were on the tastes-great side, as you almost always are. I was reacting too quickly to something optical weenie said which seemed to imply you were being attacked by the anonymous moron who was also giving me grief. I typed my comment, and was asking myself "does this comment make sense at all?" when my boss showed up at my door. In my haste to look busy I hit "Post" instead of "Cancel."

All of which is more explanation than anyone would possibly want, but I want to be sure that it's clear who I was calling a moron, and it wasn't you.

I'm going to repeat the same thing I always do. Choose an attack dog. Obama has chosen to run as a uniter, the forward thinking positive one. That ties one hand behind his back when the lie of the day come out, Obama drinks the blood of infant rabbits or whatever. He needs an uninhibited VP candidate who can hit back on his behalf. That is not the only requirement, but it is one requirement.

Two comments:

1. Kevin took umbrage with me a couple of weeks ago when I said he wasn't really that progressive.

Well, your rapture over Biden, especially with a fairly low information "blink" kind of test, proves the case.

2. On Webb, it's not just that he wouldn't be a good VP, it's that the whole premise is wrong. Riffing on George Wallace -- Obama is NOT going to "out-military" John McCain.

Credit card over-charge loving Joe Biden, who told us that the evidence of WMD was VERY clear EVEN as McCain himself said, after viewing Bush and Cheney's evidence in the pre-war phase that the Administration's evidences was NOT clear.

Please NOT Joe Blow, because Joe isn't CHANGE. Joe Biden is a DLC money-grubbing politician just exactly the same like McCain.

Oh and IF Obama picks a woman - he really should pick Hillary.

Has the mention of Biden been mocked yet? If not, let me just say that choosing the plagarizing $enator from MBNA would do nothing but lock up the already locked-up electoral votes from DE.

Go west, young Obama, and choose someone not polluted by Washington like Napolitano or Sibelius. Or put a hurt on McCain in OH by choosing Strickland. Or lure in a few more Latinos with Richardson. Or root around for a progressive Southerner who will take the nomination (which leaves out who you just thought of). But please don't choose a East-coast Beltway insider.

PS: Kaine violates the Purple state rule, as does Warner.

Howard Dean created the DNC 50 State Strategy. Obama benefitted greatly from the political infrastructure that Howard Dean built across the Nation. So why aren't we looking at Howard Dean as a VP candidate? He was vociferously anti-war before the war on Iraq began and led a legion of us to contest for the Presidency in 2004 before being shoved aside by a vicious TV attack purportedly and
covertly supported up by Kerry, Gephart, and some shadowy guy in New Jersey. Oh yes, Dean shouted out strongly while urging on his team of volunteers like any college football coach does, and then got pilloried for it. Well, that's a horrible transgression isn't it?

I have read that we need Doctor Dean desperately at the DNC because of what a great job he has done. How many times have we heard the argument that the person in our shop who has done the finest job shouldn't be promoted because of how valuable he/she is in his/her current position? Does that mean that our best performers shouldn't be promoted? Thus, following this logic through, people like George W. Bush, who was a failure at everything he ever did, are the ones who must be promoted. So I say, scratch that argument.

Doctor Dean has credentials on health care policy, foreign policy, and organizational excellence. He should be our next Vice Presidential Candidate, should he chose to accept that honor.

evan9

Howard Dean created the DNC 50 State Strategy. Obama benefitted greatly from the political infrastructure that Howard Dean built across the Nation. So why aren't we looking at Howard Dean as a VP candidate? He was vociferously anti-war before the war on Iraq began and led a legion of us to contest for the Presidency in 2004 before being shoved aside by a vicious TV attack purportedly and
covertly supported up by Kerry, Gephart, and some shadowy guy in New Jersey. Oh yes, Dean shouted out strongly while urging on his team of volunteers like any college football coach does, and then got pilloried for it. Well, that's a horrible transgression isn't it?

I have read that we need Doctor Dean desperately at the DNC because of what a great job he has done. How many times have we heard the argument that the person in our shop who has done the finest job shouldn't be promoted because of how valuable he/she is in his/her current position? Does that mean that our best performers shouldn't be promoted? Thus, following this logic through, people like George W. Bush, who was a failure at everything he ever did, are the ones who must be promoted. So I say, scratch that argument.

Doctor Dean has credentials on health care policy, foreign policy, and organizational excellence. He should be our next Vice Presidential Candidate, should he chose to accept that honor.

evan9

"Obama / Sebelius"

It doesn't pass the bumpersticker test.

He has to pick someone with a short, Euro-sounding name.

For this pointless guessing game to be fun, we need to start thinking outside of the politician veep box. To start,

Obama/Oprah. "Oh-oh it's magic."

Obama/Abdul-Jabbar. "The dream team." Plus, I'm not Muslim, my running mate is!

Obama/Jolie. "Dreamy ticket." But is she old enough?

My vote is for Schweitzer, but the Virginians also seem like good picks, and so does Sebelius. Like lampwick said above, I would be surprised if it wasn't either Sebelius, Webb, Schweitzer, or Kaine.

That said, it's totally possible Obama could pick someone out of left field, someone more obscure, and that would be wonderful.

not sssibeliusss. sss.

not sssibeliusss. sss.

should have said zzzibeliuzzz. zzz

This is a persistent meme in the blogosphere that Webb is a deeply conservative hawkish military man. This makes no sense to me! A very poor characterization by Kevin. He is a foreign policy realist, who forcefully opposed the war from the start. Thats not hawkish. Its smart.

And i don't quite understand why Obama should avoid someone who has foreign policy experience simply because it might look like he's acknowledging a McCain/GOP criticism. There are merits to picking someone with foreign policy experience independent of any outside criticisms. The ultimate mistake isn't making a choice based off of your opponents criticisms; its NOT making the choice that you would have made anyways, for those very same reasons.

I keep thinking that there is one out-of-the-park homerun option, and that would be Al Gore. Now, there's a good chance that Gore wouldn't want to do it, having already served in that position for eight years and failed to move up -- despite the voters saying he should, of course.

But what would Gore bring? Instant name recognition. Previous accomplishments as VP, and as senator, etc. Current accomplishments as climate change activist, including a Nobel Peace Prize. (And by the way, I think that those accomplishments successfully erase any taste of "loser" from the 2000 election.) The tie to the Clinton/Gore administration would help reassure the Clintonians without alienating the extreme anti-Clinton Obamaians. Obvious qualification for the job of president, which should always be the first consideration.

One minus is that he -- and the country -- might somehow see the job as "beneath him", in a BTDT sort of way. But if he wholeheartedly adopts the role, the country would come along. Another possible minus is that it would allow the GOP to bring out all of their time-tested anti-Gore cliches -- but we've had plenty of time to counter those cliches.

If Al Gore would be willing to do it, I think Obama would have to pick him.

To the Clinton supporters who hate the idea of Sebellius, I would like to point out that she is popular, has won statewide in a red state twice, and she has has managed to be progressive on many key issues in a conservative state.

Now I happen to support the idea of Hillary Clinton as VP .. but why must all women candidates be rejected because they are a woman?

Sebellius also has been in politics since 1986. She was the first Democrat in over 100 years to win statewide when she ran for state insurance commissioner and was widely credited for taking on the established interests, making real reforms, while refusing to take any money from the insurance industry.

I'm not saying that she is the best choice politically, but she has a record of success.

Obama needs to unite the democratic party. Because united we win. Choices like Webb, Biden, Richardson, Sebelius, et al. do nothing to unite the party.

The biggest weapon that the repugs have is that our party is not united -- that, despite record turnout, significant numbers of us, enough to make the difference in key states, will likely vote for McCain.

We can hold on to our bitterness and division, cross our fingers, and hope that our BLACK MALE nominee can prevail -- in a nation still filled with racism and misogyny. We can continue to "pick pepper out of fly shit" by looking for differences among V.P. candidates THAT DON'T REALLY MATTER.

We can take the unnecessary risk of 4-8 more years of McBush by knowingly leaving some of our fellow dems behind. Sit still while the hubris of the Obama campaign many of us supported -- that, btw, just BARELY won -- calculates a shaky 50-state strategy, while leaving big states that are critical to our victory still in play.

We can internalize and channel all the anti-Clinton hatred on display in the MSM for over a decade. Think of dozens of bogus reasons for Obama not to put Hillary on the ticket. Let rumors about her husband cloud our vision. Abort what would be a winning ticket because we are afraid of what some blogger or talking head -- who has been consistently WRONG! -- might say.

Yes, we can take the chance of losing again. Or we can unite the party and kick serious ass.

Lampwick nailed it.

(Lampwick: Why, pray tell, is the sainted Kerry not on your list?)

Can't we do better than recycle a bunch of losers?

Bradley? Biden? Richardson? Not one of them ever caught fire with voters when they ran.

Somehow, as BO's VP, they're now going to have appeal they previously lacked?

Let's pick someone who is perceived as having a political future.

I like Webb. Yeah, he's a bit of a kook. But his rebuttal to Bush's SOTU is exactly the sort of stuff BO needs to say.

And since BO can't say it in a way that resonates with embittered working poor gun nuts in battleground states, why not have Webb say it for him?

Al Gore, is not going to be Obama's VP. Please stop bringing it up.

Jim Webb is a plodding speaker with temper issues, and yet another "former" republican. I have a lot of respect for the man but I believe his talents belong in the Senate. Joe Biden as well.

As for the Kansas Governor lady, probably not a good idea to put somebody on the ticket whose name is hard to spell. She won't bring Kansas into the blue column and she'll just piss off Hillary voters.

I know that a week after clinching the nomination that Obama barely gets enough bounce to move out of the MOE in most polls which suggests to me that he has some serious challenges electability wise. This is supposed to be a Democratic year, right?

I'm late to this party, but my picks would be:

Clark
Richarkson
Sebelius

Webb's Tailhook baggage probably lets him out, and I think we need the Virginia Senators to stay in Virginia and keep turning the state blue. Simlarly, Dean's excellent performance as DNC chair means he should stay as DNC.

I am sure Obama and Clinton are negotiating even now. I expect we'll see Obama publicly offer Clinton the Veep-ship and Clinton publicly and politely decline, and Clinton subsequently get her pick of Senate Majority Leader -- replacing Harry "Whatever you say, Senator McConnell" Reed into the bargain -- or Supreme Court Justice.

I like either one, but I'm leaning now to the latter, not only because Hillary Clinton on the Court for life would make wingnut heads explode in perpetuity, but because even her moderate Democratic centrism would pull the Court strongly to the left.

> Wallace/Reagan Democrats respond to looking them
> in the eye and self-confidently telling them what
> the candidate stands for. Most of them do not
> respond to empty symbolic displays meant to appeal
> to their prejudices and platitudes.

Based on 2000 and 2004, I would suggest you say rather "self-confidently lies to them about what he stands for" and also reconsider the next sentence as well.

Cranky

Can the VP nominee self-finance? He could pick Buffett or Bloomberg and have them drop a billion or two on the campaign -- just to make the Republicans sweat a bit.

Eliz. Drew has an interesting article about Webb in this week's NYRB...worth reading, warts and all. FWIW, Webb's family is in SW VA. which he won (or so claims Drew), i don't have the figures.

Daschle is an obvious choice, can get legislation through congress and has been a long time supporter of Obama.

As VP candidate, you can't do much better than Claire McCaskill:

woman, Senator, from Missouri, Scots-Irish.

Everything in one.

Why has there been no other mention of McCaskill than from Sean Scallon? She could well be the clincher in a very critical state (MO). She is smart, poised, and an out-front Obama supporter. Other than the fact that she's a Senator and not a Governor, what's the downside?

If Obama picks a woman-not-Hillary, that would do nothing to assauge women voters.

Trust me on this.

I think the best pick for Obama would be either (1) someone who helps win a battleground state (e.g., Strickland, Rendell, Warner); or (2) someone who is like Bush picking Cheney, a well respected and experienced person whom one could easily see adding depth to the government of the country and becoming president if necessary - the Cheney selection was effective without diminishing Bush or highlighting a Bush weakness, while it is hard to think of a democrat who could accomplish the same.

Plus, he helps with Virginia more than any other individual could -- Webb and Kaine included.

Plus he's under 60, and has long espoused a unity vision that runs right along Obama's.

I think he not only should be the nominee, I predict he will be.

You say it's offensive for any woman but Clinton to be picked; I think the idea that the only woman acceptable to be on a ticket is Clinton is much more offensive. Sebelius has clearly earned a shot at being cons